Are there robust tests of causality that support this? I think that it is definitely possible that the causation goes the other way. Rich people have longer lasting and more frequent marriages because they have more leisure time to court and work on their relationships. Either way or both is possible I'm just wondering if there is some econometric analysis that points one way or another.
This is a great point that a lot of people who know a lot more about this topic than me bring up. That said, a casual glance at historical data leads me to believe that decline in marriage rates is mostly exogenous. The reason I believe this is because during the early 20th century you saw increasing income inequality without the divergence in marriage rates. In addition, the decline in marriage rates predates increases in income inequality. I am not dismissing what you are saying as being impossible, but I would consider it unlikely. Brad Wilcox (prof at UVA) has a lot of great work on this. Thank you for the comment!
I see this angle of the problem as very cyclic, where weaker families --> weaker finances --> etc, but considering that there's lots of things that feed into economic struggles I am skeptical that 41% of income inequality can be isolated and attributed to exogenous declines in marriage. I was able to read the abstract of the key cited research ("family structure shifts explain 41% of the increase in inequality"), but it doesn't reveal the methodology really.
Mookherjee and Shorrocks (1982) are where they get the methodology. While I agree with your point about other factors increasing income inequality, there has been a massive change in family structure that must have had some change on inequality. I mean, in 1950 having children out of wedlock was inconceivable (pun not intended). Now it is around 40%. I doubt the problem is cyclical because if you look at economic history, specifically in the early 20th century, you find that increasing inequality did not decrease marriage rates. The decline in marriage rates, however, did increase inequality.
Are there robust tests of causality that support this? I think that it is definitely possible that the causation goes the other way. Rich people have longer lasting and more frequent marriages because they have more leisure time to court and work on their relationships. Either way or both is possible I'm just wondering if there is some econometric analysis that points one way or another.
This is a great point that a lot of people who know a lot more about this topic than me bring up. That said, a casual glance at historical data leads me to believe that decline in marriage rates is mostly exogenous. The reason I believe this is because during the early 20th century you saw increasing income inequality without the divergence in marriage rates. In addition, the decline in marriage rates predates increases in income inequality. I am not dismissing what you are saying as being impossible, but I would consider it unlikely. Brad Wilcox (prof at UVA) has a lot of great work on this. Thank you for the comment!
I see this angle of the problem as very cyclic, where weaker families --> weaker finances --> etc, but considering that there's lots of things that feed into economic struggles I am skeptical that 41% of income inequality can be isolated and attributed to exogenous declines in marriage. I was able to read the abstract of the key cited research ("family structure shifts explain 41% of the increase in inequality"), but it doesn't reveal the methodology really.
Mookherjee and Shorrocks (1982) are where they get the methodology. While I agree with your point about other factors increasing income inequality, there has been a massive change in family structure that must have had some change on inequality. I mean, in 1950 having children out of wedlock was inconceivable (pun not intended). Now it is around 40%. I doubt the problem is cyclical because if you look at economic history, specifically in the early 20th century, you find that increasing inequality did not decrease marriage rates. The decline in marriage rates, however, did increase inequality.
Your observation that a "massive change in family structure must have had some change on inequality" seems compelling